- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5085 RP No. 272 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REVIEW PETITION NO. 272 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR BHREHANJERAM PINTO S/O LATE MR MONTHUALPHONSO PINTO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR KAPIKAL SCHOOL BEJAI, KADRI VILLAGE, MANGALORE 575003 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH VINCENT FERNANDES., ADVOCATE) AND: MR AUSTIN STANNY FURTADO S/O LATE MR. CHARLES FURTADO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND MUNICIPAL SCHOOL, BEJAI, KAPIKAD, MANGALORE 575004 …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS JUDGEMENT DATED 25-4-2024 IN R.S.A. 236/2014 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5085 RP No. 272 of 2024 TO ALLOW THE APPEAL TO THE EXTENT OF DISMISSING THE COUNTER CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT IN O.S. 448/2005, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS TO THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY SEEM FIT AND PROPER, IN FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this review petition to review the judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.236 of 2014, on the ground that in the judgment sought to be reviewed, the court has not considered the fact that the width of the passage is clearly and unambiguously stated to be the same as in the original sale deed i.e., the width is 5 links, which is approximately 3.3 feet, as reiterated in the covenantal portion of the rectification deed, which is relied upon by the respondent. In other words, the respondent has admitted that there is no - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5085 RP No. 272 of 2024 encroachment of the passage. As such, there is an error apparent on the face of record. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the review petition. 2. I have perused the judgment passed in R.S.A. No.236 of 2014. This Court recorded a finding based on the judgment passed in O.S. No.198 of 2007, whereas, in the said suit, the Court has framed issue No.2, (which is extracted in paragraph 15 of the judgment) and the said issue was answered in the negative. 3. This Court, considered the entire evidence on record and passed the judgment under review. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment passed in R.S.A. No.236 of 2014. 4. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the review petition. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5085 RP No. 272 of 2024 5. In view of the dismissal of the review petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12